Politics in our schools

[ScruU2wice]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with this. EVERYTHING in science is a deduction. What you're saying doesn't make any sense to me, and I'm not sure if I'm just missing the point or what.

My overarching message was that everything requires degrees of faith. Whether its quantum mechanics and string theory or whatever Sciences of all sorts have fundamental axioms that require you to just have faith. So you can't just pull the blanket on religion as completely illogical and wrong.

Well, so what? A sixth grader is taking it on faith that 2 + 2 = 4, too.

I'm kinda digressing from my point, but math in all of its' forms is based off of the perceptions of humans and human reasoning. It has its' unproven fundamentals and philosophies. For example you can't prove that a+b=b+a so it's just taking on faith. I do a crappy job of explaining it but if you talk to someone who's way more well versed in pure math and philosophy they can give you a run down on the implications of 2+2 not equalling 4.

How's that, exactly?

You're suppose to memorize the different evolutionary phases of man just like you would prophets in the bible. There is no real explanation to it Teachers just say "well this is what they were, it's in the book"

This is the part I'm really interested in: Logical holes like what? I have a sneaking suspicion you're drawing a lot of your material from Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box," and if that's true, there's MORE than enough criticism of that crock of shit on the internet to convince you, I think. And if you're not taking any ideas from it, then I'm sorry for assuming, but I'd like to know what these "logical holes" are.

Well I got it from some article I had from a Econ professor who was trying to dissociate Social Darwinism as a model for economic theory, and I kinda extrapolated that to a criticism of Darwinism. Basically my horrible run down of what the guy sais is that evolution says is that a species evolves, but it can't really narrow down what makes it evolve and how it makes it evolve. In this sense it's not really providing any evidence to the theory besides a certain species exists.

I wish I could explain it better but what I got from it was that a species could have grown wings because it wished really hard for all we know. since evolution is the result of some change, it results in a change in the species. but if we change one variable in an environment it causes immeasurable change so any determining power of an darwinian model won't provide any predicitve power, which is why it's bad economic model. But the point he was making was that the darwian model says that that species exists in it's current form because it was the only form evolution would let it take. So it kinda is just self fulfilling evidence.

I've already mixed and shredded whatever tattered remains of a message I wanted to get across. I really wish I could explain what I was trying to talk about better but I'm just not intellegent enough. So I think I'll just try laps back in to life requiring degrees of faith..